Palestine Redux

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Back in December of last year I put up a post which said in its entirety:

Very short post. I read today that Palestine has been granted full member status in the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.palestine at unesco

I also recall from a few years ago that when Palestine was admitted to UNESCO, the US had to cut off funds to UNESCO because of US law. As an article at the time said, this was the result of “US laws that force an automatic funding cutoff for any UN agency with Palestine as a member” …

Do I see an opportunity for our lawmakers here? Yep. Will they act on it? Possibly not, but if it is indeed the law, seems like they could be forced to act …

Best to all, and I do hope some organization with money and legal resources takes up this question. At least the US could stop pouring money down a rathole, even if the rest of the world continued the lunacy.

w.

So as you might imagine, I was overjoyed today to read the following media release regarding a formal letter from a group of Senators to US Secretary of State John Kerry:

Senators to Sec. Kerry: U.S. Law Prohibits Sending

U.S. Funds to U.N. Climate Convention

UNFCCC granted full membership to the “State of Palestine”; current U.S. law prohibits taxpayer dollars from going to any such U.N. organization

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) led a group of 28 senators in sending a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry demanding that the administration follow the law and prohibit funding for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its related entities.

On March 17, 2016, the “State of Palestine” was allowed to become a full member of the UNFCCC.

That action triggered a statutory restriction under the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act that prohibits the U.S. government from providing taxpayer funds to affiliated organizations of the United Nations that grant full membership as a state to certain groups, like the Palestinians.

As an affiliated organization to the United Nations, the UNFCCC and its related entities – including the Secretariat, the Conference of Parties, and the Green Climate Fund – are prohibited from receiving U.S. taxpayer funds.

In their letter, the senators demand that no U.S. funds be given to the UNFCCC and its related entities after March 17, 2016.

The senators also raise concerns about the inability of the United States to prevent the Palestinians from attempting to circumvent the peace process.

“We request that you ensure that no disbursements of U.S. funds are made to the UNFCCC and its related entities after March 17, 2016. We believe that your failure to do so will constitute a violation of current law… We implore the administration to hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions in circumventing the peace process, and to abide by current law prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funds for the UNFCCC and its related entities and other UN affiliated organizations that recognize the ‘State of Palestine,’” the senators wrote.

In addition to Senator Barrasso, the letter was signed by Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Dan Coats (R-IN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Pat Toomey (R-PA), David Vitter (R-LA) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

The full letter is here, it’s worth a read. My profound thanks to the Senators involved.

A final plea. Do not allow the dreaded thread drift to convert this into a referendum on the Israel-Palestine perennial dispute—it won’t be solved here, and this thread is about climate funds. Let’s just be happy that we have a chance to waste less taxpayer money on the hydra-headed UN climate boondoggle …

Regards to all,

w.

My Usual Request: Confusion is a huge stumbling block, so if you disagree with me or anyone, please quote the exact words you disagree with so we can all understand your objections. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend someone else’s interpretation of some unidentified words of mine.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
170 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Severian
April 20, 2016 1:26 pm

Silly senators, laws are for the little people.

Resourceguy
April 20, 2016 1:26 pm

Laws are passe, the New Normal is Chicago Rules.

Gunga Din
April 20, 2016 1:35 pm

A final plea. Do not allow the dreaded thread drift to convert this into a referendum on the Israel-Palestine perennial dispute—it won’t be solved here, and this thread is about climate funds. Let’s just be happy that we have a chance to waste less taxpayer money on the hydra-headed UN climate boondoggle …

I thought that should have been in bold so I’m repeating it.
Less taxpayer “green” going to the the UN-Green is indeed a good thing.

Doug in Calgary
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 21, 2016 12:10 pm

Less taxpayer green going to the UN in general is indeed a good thing. This failed noble experiment is well past its best-before-date. The only thing that is “unprecedented” about its constant blathering is the sense of entitlement of its bureaucrats.

Steve Fraser
April 20, 2016 1:36 pm

Could get interesting.

SMC
Reply to  Steve Fraser
April 20, 2016 2:00 pm

Nah, it’s an election year. It’s gon’na get swept under the rug. The Democratic and Media Establishment will spin it as the Republicans practicing partisan politics and attempt to use it in the presidential campaign (probably successfully). It won’t matter that the law was passed in 1994 (I believe we had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate at that time, not sure though (and not really interested enough to look it up)) and signed into law by a Democratic President (Bill Clinton).

Editor
Reply to  SMC
April 20, 2016 3:28 pm

Yes, D-controlled. Both Houses.

April 20, 2016 1:49 pm

I wonder which of this site’s usual CAGW trolls, uh, commenters, are also leftist orthodox on Palestine. The green blob does tend leftist in the US (everywhere?).

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 22, 2016 2:00 am

Tom Halla on April 20, 2016 at 1:49 pm
I wonder which of this site’s usual CAGW trolls, uh, commenters, are also leftist orthodox on Palestine. The green blob does tend leftist in the US (everywhere?).
________________
In europe left fractions are distinct from greens; and all greens are CONSERVATIVE:
After all they want to conserve / rebuild a Green Acardian Nature that never existed in History:
typically
– medivial windmill romancing – when medivial windmills where indeed hard business, money machines for the local goverments.
– living solely on SunLight should get solved by PV.
_________________
nontheless most parties in europe are pro palestinean.

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 6:57 am

Johann, I guess it depends on how one classifies a reactionary fantasist. One can make a coherent argument that Marx was a reactionary in his criticism of capitalism, and a fantasist in envisioning a future that could never exist given that real people would be involved.
The greens I am familiar with are certainly reactionary, and want to create a society that never was (and cannot be). Mostly, the problem is that classifying politics in only one dimension puts royalists and fascists in the same place, which is mainfestly silly.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 23, 2016 8:00 pm

I notice that the people who have violated the author’s plea not to turn this into a discussion about Palestine take the Israeli side. Global warming and Palestine are completely separate issues. One could argue that Zionism and the global warming industry are both parasitical on the US.

April 20, 2016 1:50 pm

Why are there no Senate Democrat signatories? Don’t Dems also want the Barack Hussein Obama administration to follow the law?

firetoice2014
Reply to  Chris Crusade
April 20, 2016 2:00 pm

They haven’t on any issue in 7+ years. Why start now?

Reply to  firetoice2014
April 20, 2016 4:35 pm

Right, why ruin a perfect record.

TA
Reply to  Chris Crusade
April 20, 2016 4:16 pm

No, most of the Democrat Senators don’t care as long as their political agenda is moved forward. Laws are for Republicans and Conservatives, and insufficently submissive Independents.

ATheoK
Reply to  Chris Crusade
April 21, 2016 7:28 am

I knew the two cowards representing Virginia would not be on that list. Like most of the current D. Senators they’re unable to have bowel movements without POTUS permission.
TA nailed their perspective of legal repercussions; especially since the dimmest senator light bulbs are busy colluding with special interest groups to harass citizens with contrary opinions.

SMC
April 20, 2016 1:51 pm

If the legislature can’t compel the executive to follow the law, especially when they make the laws and have the power of the purse, then we no longer have a democracy or republic. The fact that the letter makes a ‘request’ and ‘implores’ the executive branch to follow the law seems to imply the legislature has conceded it’s constitutional powers and prerogatives to the executive. I wonder how long it will be before Congress admits it’s nothing more than a rubber stamp legislature. I wonder how long it will be before we have a president for life.

Reply to  SMC
April 20, 2016 2:01 pm

Not to mention that it is considered a serious question of law whether a majority of States have standing to bring a lawsuit against the Executive. If they do not have standing, who does?

SMC
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
April 20, 2016 4:11 pm

It would probably take a constitutional convention, Article V, for the States to have standing. Good luck on getting 3/4 of them to agree.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
April 20, 2016 7:39 pm

The problem with calling a Constitutional Convention is that then everything is up for grabs.
It’s a call for a new form of Government, a new “Constitution”, not just calling for and forcing the present to adhere to the old.
Bye, bye Bill of Rights.
(We could really end up with a King with no Magna Carta. What would the MSM push for?)

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
April 20, 2016 8:18 pm

Contrary to Gunga Din, an Article Five Convention would not mean that “everything is up grabs.” Such a Convention may be called for the specific purpose of amending the Constitution, not abrogating or replacing it. And the Amendments approved would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
/Mr Lynn

MarkW
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
April 21, 2016 6:56 am

The same politicians who have caused the current problems, will be the ones running any Article V convention.
No good can come of that.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
April 21, 2016 2:17 pm

L. E. Joiner April 20, 2016 at 8:18 pm
Contrary to Gunga Din, an Article Five Convention would not mean that “everything is up grabs.” Such a Convention may be called for the specific purpose of amending the Constitution, not abrogating or replacing it. And the Amendments approved would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
/Mr Lynn

This is more of a question than an argument, but if a convention is called, that is a meeting of a bunch of people, to discuss a change for a specific purpose, what is to prevent other changes being put forward?
(A convention is called to consider, say, a balanced budget amendment. A motion from the floor wants to also consider abolishing, say, the 2nd amendment. It is seconded. What in Article Five would prevent that scenario?)

Pat Frank
Reply to  SMC
April 20, 2016 4:58 pm

The legislature can impeach the president for cause. That’s about it.
This year’s budget is already in force. So, Congress can only ask the State Department to freeze funds it already has. It can’t stop the State Department from breaking the law. Next budget year, Congress can zero out the UNFCCC line item.

SMC
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 20, 2016 5:18 pm

“The legislature can impeach the president for cause.”
They could but, they won’t.
What happens with the next budget year is going to depend a great deal on who wins the election… Maybe.

MarkW
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 21, 2016 6:57 am

Even if Congress zeros out the UNFCCC line item, it’s a trivial matter for the president to transfer money from some other line item to fund it.
Illegal as all get out, but that hasn’t mattered in years.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 21, 2016 10:04 am

They could impeach John Kerry.

stevefitzpatrick
April 20, 2016 2:20 pm

Hi Willis,
Based on Mr Obama’s past record, I will be very surprised if he withdraws UN climate funding based on existing law, no matter what that law says. More likely he will just refuse until directed to do so by the Supreme Court. That is less than a 100% certain outcome from the Court, and in any case is very unlikely to happen before Mr Obama’s term ends, if ever.

BernardP
April 20, 2016 2:22 pm

What we read and hear in the mostly left-leaning western media is far different from how Israelis themselves view the “Palestinian” question. Worth your time if you haven’t seen these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAuBc_cbXo0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIRJO9TaaOI

LarryFine
Reply to  BernardP
April 20, 2016 3:24 pm

Here’s a fun fact. These Arabs don’t have the letter “p” in their alphabet. So they cannot even spell the ethnic group they appropriated for themselves.
But they certainly fit right in with the Climate Change movement.

saveenergy
Reply to  BernardP
April 20, 2016 3:54 pm

To put some historical accuracy into that, see –

Their facts are correct, whereas Danny Ayalon is doing a warmist by manipulating data.
To quote Willis
“A final plea. Do not allow the dreaded thread drift to convert this into a referendum on the Israel-Palestine perennial dispute—it won’t be solved here, and this thread is about climate funds.”
So lets keep on topic.

Marcus
Reply to  saveenergy
April 20, 2016 4:11 pm

..OMG, that was a pathetic video..You should have stayed on topic !

Reply to  saveenergy
April 20, 2016 4:39 pm

The problem is that if Palestine is a state, it is a terrorist state. That’s the main problem with Palestine.

BernardP
Reply to  saveenergy
April 21, 2016 5:29 am

Danny Avalon posted another video to refute the above “actual truth” video:

LarryFine
Reply to  saveenergy
April 21, 2016 9:01 am

BernardP,
Beautiful.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  saveenergy
April 22, 2016 1:28 am

Got to laugh. In America where Jews are not persecuted they are disappearing into the melting pot. I wrote an unpublished novel wherein a Jewish child is presented with a large Goyim doll and he grabs a club and begins beating on it shouting “I hate you! I hate you!” He is admonished by a pro-Israel rabbi and told to think about what he has been taught. After a moment the child again attacks the Goyim doll but this time he is shouting “You hate me! You hate me!”
When I was about 15 I was with my mother when she stopped in at a chicken farm to buy eggs. My mother inquired about the women’s family and was told that the women’s eldest daughter was dead. This greatly distressed my mother and she tried to say nice things about the woman’s daughter who had often sold her eggs. The women turned her back on my mother and went inside her house. The woman was Jewish and, as my mother found out days later, her daughter had married a “gentile”. Of course that was fifty years ago.
Israel is basically the same — it is an attempt to isolate Jews from other cultures. If Israel had not been surrounded by “hate” could it have become a nation? Part of the history of the area that people don’t know is that many Arab villages signed peace treaties with neighboring Jewish villages. Those Arab villages that wanted to live in peace with their neighbors were the ones attacked by Jewish terrorists (and terrorists is what they were). So now Israel exists surrounded by hate — the Jews, by their behavior, seem to have eliminated all the groups that wanted peace.
But now, I will talk about something that you will find crazy. About ten years ago I took up biblical Hebrew translation. (Do not ask me why since, as an atheist, I had zero interest in its contents.) After many struggles I recognized that the texts were wrongly dated because they had been written by Hebrew Christians. All the Books I looked at were Christians stories. The Romans did wipe the Hebrews off the face of the earth and modern Jews are using texts written by Christian Hebrews as their Holy Book. CRAZY!!!! But true.
Anyway, i have not been doing much translation for the last few years since the work is incredibly boring (I would rather play WOW.) and for other reasons — but a few days ago I decided to translate all the sections where God supposedly promised land to the Hebrews and see what they exactly say. I just need to stop playing WOW so much and get on with it. But bad habits are hard to break.
Eugene WR Gallun
PS — Just because the Israeli lobby pushed through a law that does not mean it is a just law. Your premise seems to be — What’s good for Israel is good for climate skeptics. If something were bad for Israel but good for climate skeptics would support it? Now my opinion of the UN is that I would like to see the US quit it and through eminent domain take back the UN building and maybe let Trump turn it into a hotel. Maybe call it “The Trump International”.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  saveenergy
April 22, 2016 5:13 am

“Just because the Israeli lobby pushed through a law that does not mean it is a just law.”
It doesn’t have to be a just law, it just has to be a law. If it’s an unjust law then people can rail against it to get the law changed. Until that time, it needs to be enforced.
As for using it as a lever against the UN climate change/NWO machine, it is currently available and could be useful.

Reply to  BernardP
April 23, 2016 8:08 pm

“the mostly left-leaning western media”
Except on the Israel/Palestine question.

Mark
April 20, 2016 2:43 pm

The US tax payer is sinking 3bn a year into Israel, and some of that comes back to AIPAC who lobby to keep the 3bn flowing.
What Palestine got is pittance compared to the US tax payer actually funding the occupation.
This “rat hole” has 10s of thousands of traumatised children, several thousand maimed and none of them can get in or out without a word from the warden.

catweazle666
Reply to  Mark
April 20, 2016 2:58 pm

Drivel.

Mark
Reply to  catweazle666
April 20, 2016 3:01 pm

Yeah great rebuttal 😀

ClimateOtter
Reply to  catweazle666
April 20, 2016 3:31 pm

I agree, great rebuttal and completely appropriate. As noted above, this is not the place for that discussion.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  catweazle666
April 21, 2016 4:47 pm

Nonsense propaganda.

LarryFine
Reply to  Mark
April 20, 2016 3:30 pm

Why would you compare foreign aid to the state of Israel with foreign aid to the Arabs tribes living in Gaza and the West Bank areas?

ClimateOtter
Reply to  LarryFine
April 20, 2016 3:32 pm

Come on, Larry, this is not the forum for that discussion. Let him stew in his own juices.

Brian B
Reply to  Mark
April 20, 2016 3:32 pm

What does your comment have to do with climate funds?
Is it not precisely the kind of comment on the unrelated Israeli/Palestinian dispute the author so politely requested you refrain from?

george e. smith
Reply to  Mark
April 20, 2016 4:05 pm

Actually Palestine is just that piece of land west of Saudi Arabia, and north of the Sinai Desert. I think that encompasses modern Israel and Jordan, but maybe not Lebanon.
I have no idea what Palestinians are; there seems to be no history of such a people. In fact I never much heard the word, until the grandfather of the present King of Jordan drove a bunch of rabble rousing Arabs out of his part of Palestine, and no other Arab State would take them in.
Don’t quite understand why just a piece of land would get UN membership status of any kind.
Is Antarctica a UN member ?? It certainly has plenty of climate issues

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
April 20, 2016 5:37 pm

As to the letter to Kerry; that seems an odd approach. I thought the Senate could just subpoena him to come before them, and ask him to his face why he hasn’t already pulled the plug on the funds.
Maybe they could just sent him a tweetle to let him know they are serious.
When the House and the Senate both write such a law as to prohibit any such spending; then we might believe they are serious. Put it on the President’s desk, and tell him to implement it immediately.
What they did is like writing a check for a trillion dollars, and then using that check to light up an illegal Cuban cigar.
G

1saveenergy
Reply to  george e. smith
April 20, 2016 6:09 pm

george,
“I have no idea what Palestinians are; there seems to be no history of such a people”
Well you need to study some history,…. you could start with the bible …
“The people shall hear, and be afraid; sorrow shall take hold of the inhabitants of Palestina.”
(Exod 15:14) [now aint that the truth]
followed by –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_region_of_Palestine
to start you off.
My grandfather was there in the 1920s & was horrified by the way we Brits treated the local population Arabs & Jews were seen as 3rd class. A lot of the problems started then & escalated.
1948 was diabolical, ashamed to be British.

benofhouston
Reply to  george e. smith
April 20, 2016 6:35 pm

George, while my better mind says to stay out of this, I feel compelled to jump in.
I’m not going to go into why or why not here, but your reasoning is too faulty to go unchallenged. Why does a group need a reason to want independence? Is there some definition of a historical precedent necessary before independence from one’s government is necessary? There was no such thing as an American before the 1770s, so by your logic, they should not have been granted independence from Britain.
It is the people who make the country and the people who are granted independence. The wisdom of such an action is debatable, but the definition is not.

Reply to  george e. smith
April 20, 2016 6:36 pm

Well, Israel was created by fiat in the UN and at the same time Palestine was created – you know – the two-state ‘solution’ was the initial conditions for Israel and the Israeli terrorists have worked steadfastly to deny the completion of that solution. I have no time for Israel and their oppressive occupation of Palestine and their stealing of Syrian lands. Israel is a religious state and implements violent apartheid policies. Go watch ‘5 Broken Cameras’.
As for Willis, well, we should not celebrate this at all. We might agree the money could be spent better elsewhere but to have this political bigotted reason is bordering on inhumane.

LarryFine
Reply to  george e. smith
April 21, 2016 9:09 am

“PLEASE STOP THIS NONSENSE! THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR YOUR INFERNAL ETERNAL ANCIENT FEUDS!! TAKE IT ELSEWHERE!! Is that clear? w.”
How offensive.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
April 21, 2016 1:56 pm

I’m sorry Willis.
I (perhaps irrationally) presumed that the ” Palestine Redux ” heading to this thread was of your doing.
And it was that “Palestine” to which I was referring. Oddly enough actually mentioned in that “Bible” referred to by 1saveenergy, as “The Land of Palestine”.
I think I said it was a piece of land.
Now why is there a USA law prohibiting funds going to a piece of land ?
I haven’t fathomed your concern that I mentioned the very same piece of land that you have.
Have no idea what 1saveenergy is babbling about, since he goes on and refers to the exact same piece of land; evidently in Italian or latin, rather than English.
But if it was not you who introduced the subject, then my apologies.
G

MarkW
Reply to  Mark
April 21, 2016 6:59 am

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will always sympathize with the criminal.

Reply to  Mark
April 21, 2016 1:31 pm

You mean there’s a $3bn annual US taxpayer stipend earmarked for Israel? They just get a great wad of cash to do with as they please?
Actually, not. Every year, Israel (like every other country in the world) goes shopping. And each year (like every other country in the world), they have to take out a loan so that they can go shopping. When Israel goes for a loan, the banks reply “Well, since you’re a tiny country surrounded by violent savages that have sworn to commit a second holocaust, we’ll lend you the money. But the interest rate we charge will have to reflect the risk we’re taking.” So Israel says to the US “We would have spent $3bn shopping in the US, but our interest rate is so high it will only be $1bn.”
So, what does the US do? They put $3bn into an escrow fund to pay off the Israeli loan should anything untoward happen to them. With a secured loan, Israel gets a much lower interest rate and goes shopping with the whole $3bn – in the US, on US made goods and services. As Israel pays off its loan (as it has done – in full and on time since the founding of the country), the principal in escrow reverts back to the treasury.
Not a bad non-expenditure of tax payer funds in my book. Quite unlike breaking the law to continue funding the un-American UNFCCC that accepts terrorists as full members.

April 20, 2016 2:46 pm

I encountered this illuminating story (link below) only yesterday. I hope that it is not too off-topic.
“A three-judge federal appeals court panel held a hearing March 1 on whether the U.N. should be held accountable for Haiti’s devastating (cholera) epidemic.
A federal district judge last year dismissed the class-action suit, ruling that international treaties immunize the U.N. from lawsuits. The plaintiffs appealed the lower court’s dismissal, resulting in this month’s hearing. The United States is defending the U.N., since the agency is headquartered in New York.
The plaintiffs contend the U.N. forfeited its legal immunity when it failed to launch an internal process to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ claims, as they say its own commitments require.
“The U.N.’s conditional immunity does not authorize impunity,” plaintiffs’ attorney Beatrice Lindstrom told the three-judge appeals panel.
The judges seemed to be struggling to find a way to provide some compensation to Haitian cholera victims.
Blain said the U.S. government “certainly recognizes that this is an unfortunate and tragic humanitarian catastrophe,” but asserted that the U.N. has “absolutely immunity … for a very important reason.””
So, anyway, there you have it. I think that we can safely conclude that the expressions “a law unto themselves” and “making it up as they go along” can be applied.
I agree that the U.N. has absolutely immunity for a very important reason.
This is correct – and the very important reason is, “so that it can do whatever the crap it likes and get away with it all of the time, without facing any consequences”.
Anyway, I just thought that I would share this very interesting story on a vaguely related topic:
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/03/21/471256913/why-the-u-n-is-being-sued-over-haitis-cholera-epidemic

Gunga Din
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
April 21, 2016 2:28 pm

I think we need a new acronym.
How about CUNI, Catastrophic United Nations Involvement?
(Let them talk but they wouldn’t be able to do much damage without the funds to do so.)

Reply to  Gunga Din
April 21, 2016 4:50 pm

I bet that B.P. would have liked to have had immunity from prosecution.
It’s pretty handy, when your organization screws up and causes environmental contamination or loss of life. Both in the case of the U.N.
And if people don’t think that they are in it for the money – then they should take a look at the top tier salaries and perks.

Rodzki of Oz
April 20, 2016 2:55 pm

Trump and particularly Cruz ought to jump onto this. There is already a perception that Democrats abuse power (IRS hounding of political opponents) and have disdain for the law (Clinton email scandal). If Kerry fails to act, here’s another rolled gold example.

SMC
Reply to  Rodzki of Oz
April 20, 2016 3:57 pm

Cruz signed the letter. So did Rubio.

Greg
April 20, 2016 3:07 pm

This seems like a good opportunity to kill the whole Paris scam at birth/
I’d don’t know if you have seen this. It seems like some underhand,
back-room trickery went on in the final text of the Paris agreement.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/18/us-and-china-lead-push-to-bring-paris-climate-deal-into-force-early
” Governments at the Paris climate meeting had initially set the start
date of the agreement in 2020 – with intense discussion over whether
that start date should be at the start or end of the year, according to
diplomats.
The 2020 date remained in the negotiating drafts almost until the very
end, the diplomats said. But unaccountably the final draft prepared by
France left out the entire clause. By that point, after a few late-night
negotiating sessions, a number of countries did not notice the omission. ”
Someone has pulled a fast one on the Paris treaty.
If that’s the kind of bad faith that is going on, time to Pull Out NOW.
If that was not the text that was negotiated why the heck are 135
rushing to sign it this week. Has no one noticed yet?
This isn’t a detail, it could have huge impact.
I would have thought that was good reason pull out of the signing process. Maybe the said senators would like to to get on the case. …

Greg
April 20, 2016 3:08 pm

This seems like a good opportunity to kill the whole Paris s-c-a-m at birth
I’d don’t know if you have seen this. It seems like some underhand,
back-room trickery went on in the final text of the Paris agreement.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/18/us-and-china-lead-push-to-bring-paris-climate-deal-into-force-early
” Governments at the Paris climate meeting had initially set the start
date of the agreement in 2020 – with intense discussion over whether
that start date should be at the start or end of the year, according to
diplomats.
The 2020 date remained in the negotiating drafts almost until the very
end, the diplomats said. But unaccountably the final draft prepared by
France left out the entire clause. By that point, after a few late-night
negotiating sessions, a number of countries did not notice the omission. ”
Someone has pulled a fast one on the Paris treaty.
If that’s the kind of bad faith that is going on, time to Pull Out NOW.
If that was not the text that was negotiated why the heck are 135
rushing to sign it this week. Has no one noticed yet?
This isn’t a detail, it could have huge impact.
I would have thought that was good reason pull out of the signing process. Maybe the said senators would like to to get on the case. …

Steve in Seattle
April 20, 2016 3:15 pm

going to forward this letter to Patty Pork Murray and Maria Cantspell – being stuck with these two here in WA, and demand an answer. Thanks W !

LarryFine
April 20, 2016 3:17 pm

For years, the Republican controlled House has had the power to defund a myriad of illegal actions taken by this administration — and they promised they would in order to their gain power — but they never have.
Therefore, I predict the illegal funds will flow, and Republicans will do nothing, apart from maybe adding this issue to some mailing in which they beg for donations and votes.

George Klein
April 20, 2016 4:05 pm

I recommend all readers of this post and discussion email your US Senators to defund the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and all connected entities, if your Senator was not a signer of the letter to Kerry., contact them and ask your friends to do likewise. The more emails they get on this issues, the more they will be empowered to act (Squeaky wheel syndrome).
George Devries Klein, PhD,PG, FGSA

MarkW
Reply to  George Klein
April 21, 2016 7:14 am

Go whole hog, defund the UN in total.

Erica
April 20, 2016 4:19 pm

More amateur ”signts” hour posturing. Don’t tell people what or how they’re supposed to say something. You’re nobody – you don’t possess some special right to dictate the terms of other peoples’ conversations.
If you want to speak, ignore this scientifically illiterate clod’s constant message shaping and say it.

My Usual Request: Confusion is a huge stumbling block, so if you disagree with me or anyone, please quote the exact words you disagree with so we can all understand your objections. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend someone else’s interpretation of some unidentified words of mine.

[Reply: Please make clear who you are replying/referring to. -mod]

SMC
Reply to  Erica
April 20, 2016 5:10 pm

@Erica.
Is that the best you can do watermelon? You really need to practice your trolling if you’re gon’na make here.

BFL
Reply to  Erica
April 20, 2016 7:48 pm

“you don’t possess some special right to dictate the terms of other peoples’ conversations.”
Ah yes, the common problem of politicians and others of their ilk; where they are elected based on so many promises and then do just the opposite in back room buy outs when in office. Nice to know that you approve of such behavior.

catweazle666
Reply to  Erica
April 21, 2016 10:34 am

“You’re nobody – you don’t possess some special right to dictate the terms of other peoples’ conversations.”
What an ill-considered rant, ironic or what.
If you’re “somebody”, I am happy to be nobody.
Now go and take your nice BSE medicine dear, there’s a good girl!

TA
April 20, 2016 4:35 pm

I would be surprised if the U.S. Congress were able to cutoff funds for this.
Obama would certainly veto any bill he recieved, and the GOP is so afraid of being called a racist for opposing Obama, that they will let it slide, just like they have done, ever since Obama got into Office.
The Left has played the race card very well. It was especially easy for them because the Republicans surrendered before the fight even began. The Republicans want no part of being called a racist, and will sell the country down the river to avoid it.
“Victim Cards” won’t be a problem with a President Trump. Trump will have to stick to the letter of the law, and listen to Congress, or face crippling opposition, from both parties.
I’m not sure if Hillary could succesfully play the “female” card. Although I’m sure she would try it. I’m just not sure how much sympathy Hillary engenders in people anymore. The victimizer doesn’t play a victim very well.
I think her past is catching up with her. That’s why she is having such a hard time putting Bernie away.
When Trump gets to debate her, he will drive her negatives into the ground. I’m looking forward to this one.
I can hear the outraged Liberal News Media now, going ballistic over Trump’s attacks on “poor Hillary”. Most Republicans would be intimidated into submission and silence by such an attack. It won’t phase Trump.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  TA
April 20, 2016 4:52 pm

Money does not flow automatically to the Administration’s programs. Disbursement of funds must be authorized by Congress, and in fact all spending bills must originate in the House. They just have to not fund such expenditures and then grow a pair and a spine and mean it.

SMC
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 20, 2016 5:06 pm

“They just have to not fund such expenditures and then grow a pair and a spine and mean it.”
Good luck with that.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 21, 2016 8:33 am

Sadly, the Republican leadership (and I choke when have to use that term) seems to be incapable of any actions which would be consistent with the separation of powers which the US Constitution sets forth.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 21, 2016 11:45 am

A question: can the POTUS veto a “law”? Hasn’t it already passed a veto opportunity? This should be about enforcement of an existing law, right? Peanuts from Canada.

SMC
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 20, 2016 5:21 pm

We can hope they will follow the law and precedent and cut off funding. I wouldn’t be optimistic though… Then again, maybe I’m too pessimistic.

mikewaite
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 21, 2016 2:32 am

However the severance of funds had no effect on UNESCO’s programmes that I am aware of . Will the action requested by the senators have any effect on the UN climate policy ? that is one point not immediately obvious from the comments made above.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 21, 2016 10:11 am

hopefully they can follow the law….but this administration and the bureaucracy seem intent on presenting both congress and citizens with end runs so far gone that the effort to contain them becomes meaningless. The courts can’t keep up with the nimble pace of developments. At least in this case there is precedent

BFL
Reply to  TA
April 20, 2016 8:04 pm

“I’m just not sure how much sympathy Hillary engenders in people anymore.”
I surmise that because of the what she had to put up with in Bill, that she mostly hates men in general (and her treatment of her own SS would back this up). And since almost all that she has to work with are of that gender, it would probably cause congressional lockups like with Obummer and result in a lot more supportive laws/executive actions and lawsuits for her kind. If she could, she might even declare that the US culture rightfully belongs to Amazonians. I, for one, stand in fear…..

TA
Reply to  BFL
April 21, 2016 2:01 pm

You *should* stand in fear. Hillary and Bill stole the White House furniture, the last time she was in there. 🙂 I think she had to repay something like $250,000 back to the federal government after she got caught.

u.k(us)
April 20, 2016 5:59 pm

“Do not allow the dreaded thread drift to convert this into a referendum on the Israel-Palestine perennial dispute…”
==========
I always took you for a realist, not an optimist.
Sheesh, I know better.
Here we go, mods get ready.

u.k(us)
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 20, 2016 6:58 pm

We’re on the same team, even if our methods differ.
Let’s not call it a “game” though, eh ?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 20, 2016 7:59 pm

“…and that they want to see it enforced.”
They need to add an “or else”. ie No more money approved to fund their voters. Period. (Including PBS and the … whatever they call the endowment for the arts.).
This is serious. Time to get serious.
Some reelections may become in jeopardy, but who voted for you so you just so you could be reelected?
To paraphrase something a genuine leader with his rep on the line said, “Damn the innuendos! Full speed ahead!”

george e. smith
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 21, 2016 2:18 pm

Well yes Willis, I know as you said there already a law on the books prohibiting US funding of ANY UN agency that includes that unmentionable piece of land as a member.
I was simply suggesting that the Congress could emphasize that fact by passing a specific new law mentioning this particular climate funding, as being contrary to already existing law, and handing that to the President to sign or not.
That would at least make it plain that it is already illegal under existing law, which he should enforce.
In any case, can’t the house simply defund that particular item in the budget ??
G

Asp
April 20, 2016 6:34 pm

Maybe Palestine’s membership of this august body charged with saving the planet from the detrimental effects of greenhouse gases result in less rockets being fired into their neighbor’s back yard.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
April 20, 2016 6:41 pm

Willis:
Thanks for the followup, and good call on the original post. I await developments with anticip-p-p-p-p-pation.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 21, 2016 12:28 am

Thank you, Willis . . It seems real clear to me th at you hold the moral high-ground . .

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 21, 2016 8:38 am

Very well said, Willis!

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 21, 2016 10:23 am

If I recall correctly the partition of Palestine and Korean peninsula are right in there as the first efforts of the newly constituted UN at “peace keeping”. Those efforts have been such a resounding failure that the UN now wishes to control the economic and energy policies of the world to demonstrate for us all that the only form of economy MUST be malthusian.

April 20, 2016 8:35 pm

I think it unlikely that the UNFCCC was unaware of this US law. Assuming that is true, I think it even more unlikely that they would have proceeded without some assurance that their funding would not be negatively impacted. The UNFCCC is first and foremost interested in their own well being, They seem to think there is a net benefit to themselves, so they are forging ahead while the world’s poorest of the poor suffer the most from their policies.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 20, 2016 10:09 pm

In any case, it’s the law, now it just has to be enforced
I fear the politics have changed since 2011. Obama has been running circles around both the law and congress (in my view) for his entire second term. Climate change is a centre piece of his “legacy” and poking the Israeli president in the eye at the same time is just an added bonus for him.
This is a case where I would be very glad to be completely wrong.
The UNESCO thing got a lot of attention in Israeli media. This, not a ripple (that I have seen). Something’s afoot.
And again… I hope I am completely wrong.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 22, 2016 5:17 am

“Given that the US has already stopped funding UNESCO based on the very same law, I don’t see how they could have been given assurances, ”
Seriously? Mr. Kerry just tells them, “don’t worry about it. We control a slush fund and you’ll be covered one way or another.”

Khwarizmi
April 20, 2016 9:33 pm

You want inhumane? Spending money on the UNFCCC to deprive the poor of inexpensive energy is currently causing sorrow, sickness, endless labor, and death around the planet.
=========
Depriving the poor of inexpensive energy is a horrible thing to do.
“Israel steps up [U.S. taxpayer subsidized] bombardment of Gaza; territory’s only power plant”
-Washington Post, July 2014

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 20, 2016 10:41 pm

The problem with ancient feuds is the time and energy some people invest in keeping them alive. In this case, the omission of a single word from the actual headline substantially alters its meaning.
In deference to your request, I shall leave it at that.

Marcus
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 21, 2016 5:16 am

The actual headline said ..
Middle East
Israel steps up bombardment of Gaza; territory’s only power plant struck
By Sudarsan Raghavan
, William Booth
and Ruth Eglash
July 29, 2014
GAZA CITY — Israel targeted the home of the top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday in some of the heaviest bombardment of the ongoing conflict after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned his country to be prepared for a prolonged campaign.
Palestinian officials said Israel also hit a fuel tank at Gaza’s only electricity plant early Tuesday, forcing it to shut down.

April 20, 2016 10:11 pm

When an international body accepts a non-existent “state” (there is no “Palestinian state”, nor have never been), it says all about that body.
It is a political body with an agenda, nothing else.
If America still gives it money – regardless of its own law, it tells everything about its government: no regards for the law. (UNESCO is also funded by the US and it is THE most biased and pure antisemitic body in the UN).
Sadly, I did not expect anything else.

gary@erko
April 20, 2016 10:30 pm

Has Palestine submitted a programme for reduction of their well documented emissions?
PS – Be careful to not get a couple of letters wrong in UNFCCC.

RHL
April 20, 2016 10:42 pm

The United States contributes about 22% of the funding for the UNFCCC according to the document listed below on page 31 so it would take a large chunk of the funding away. The total budget for 2016-2017 is EUR 54,648,484.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10a03.pdf
It is not clear whether the prohibition would also apply to adaptation financing of third world countries which could be substantial.

Bryan
April 21, 2016 12:13 am

Good try Willis Eschenbach, but you fool no-one.
How to split a united left -right opposition to climate pseudoscience in one easy lesson

Mark
April 21, 2016 4:05 am

This subject I researched and discussed for years, Willis, clearly you know nothing because you called it a “conflict”.
Palestine has never had a tank ship plane artillery piece or any army.
Israel has tanks bombs guns planes missiles nukes ships and the political and military backing of the largest military force in the world
I respect your work on climate science, if you had the slightest inkling you’d not have called it a “conflict”.
In general given the US media, I find Americans (in general) know less about Palestine than anyone else.
@greg, pointless, there are millions there now, trapped, having their land stolen, farmers even have to pay for the IDF to throw their olive trees over the new walls built around their former farms.
There were no Israelis there either remember, such skewed thinking, there were Arabs, Jews Christian and Muslim, and NONE of them wanted the immigrants (seem familiar to today doesn’t it).
Sadly, the problems really got bad with the addition of 1 million right wing nuts that arrived in the region after the fall of the soviet union.
I served 2 tours in Lebanon as UN peace keeper during the Syria conflict years and one in Golan. I have been to the West Bank and been to Israel to look at Gaza from the outside.
It’s a tragedy, the UN need to get between two sides that just are at a point where reconciliation is made impossible by US mediation, yes mediating an occupation you fund and supply and protect.. yeah sure.
Bush stopped settlement building at the drop of a hat by stopping funding, but he only did it because of how brazen Israeli officials were with him about it.
The US mediating peace deals is like explaining to a bully’s big brother why the bully is bullying you.
The only solution is a secular state for all faiths as it was before the creation of Israel.
If anyone wants a schooling keep talking, otherwise lets move on before some embarrass themselves irrevocably. This subject is my bread and milk.

Marcus
Reply to  Mark
April 21, 2016 5:23 am

Liberal revision of history is only swallowed by the truly gullible !! You are their king !

Reply to  Marcus
April 21, 2016 5:30 pm

Please tell me that Palestinians never had any rockets.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Mark
April 21, 2016 6:01 am

Mark,
As a long term intelligence analyst I have only one request for you. KEEP STUDYING. You missed the plot somewhere in the middle of your ideology.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mark
April 21, 2016 6:47 am

“Mark April 21, 2016 at 4:05 am
Palestine has never had a tank ship plane artillery”
I worked with a Palestinian in New Zealand. He was a former airforce pilot.

MarkW
Reply to  Mark
April 21, 2016 7:21 am

Al Queda never had a tank, plane, ship, etc, either. Yet they managed to kill over 3000 Americans in a single day.

Bryan
Reply to  MarkW
April 21, 2016 8:22 am

Who trained and armed the original core of Al Queda in Afghanistan?

Reply to  MarkW
April 21, 2016 8:26 am

MarkW,
For every Israeli killed, hundreds of Palestinians: men, women and children were killed. Schools and hospitals were bombed, their only power station was bombed and their only harbor destroyed and blocked forever. The Israeli words: an eye for an eye… was multiplied a hundredfold.
I do not support violence from the other side anyway, but the blind (?) destruction from the Israeli side was in no ratio to what the Palestinians had done.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 21, 2016 9:35 am

Bryan, nice non-sequitor there. Did you have help with it?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
April 21, 2016 9:36 am

Ferdinand, the Palis only have themselves to blame for their problems.
If they would stop trying to kill Jews at every opportunity, the Israelis would not be forced to fight back.
As to the kill ratio, so what, the initiator of violence has no right to whine when the victim strikes back.

Reply to  MarkW
April 21, 2016 9:55 am

MarkW,
If the Israeli’s use every opportunity to kill even a small start of any economical survival of the Palestinians, take their land at every opportunity even where their families lived for thousands of years, then the question is who is the attacker and who the victim…

Dr. Dave
April 21, 2016 7:12 am

I seem to recall that President Obama signed an executive order stating that all subsequent executive orders have the power to circumvent public law. He then issued an executive order appointing himself as king. Then keeping with his promise to be the most open administration ever, everything was redacted and subsequent FOIA requests have been ignored.
Or maybe it just seems like he did all of this based upon his actions… so I suspect that consistent with his behavior over the past 8 years, he’ll ignore the law that requires him to stop funding the UN.

April 21, 2016 8:16 am

Dear Willis,
Sorry to see such a political laden story from your side. Most of the time I agree with your stance and even agree with de-subsidizing of the UNFCCC as it has no function other than putting poor people into worse conditions with its de-carbonization plans.
If you take that US law to an extreme, you have to de-subsidizing Unicef too, as they do a lot of work in Palestine territory for the children, and better life conditions for everybody there like fresh water supplies and waste water treatment…
Just an example of the wasp nest you are referring to: recently Israel did bulldozer a children’s playground, build with money from the Belgian development aid. Maybe to show children how to get future suicide bombers instead of just playing like children everywhere in the world?

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 22, 2016 1:22 am

Willis,
If you bring a political point like this, you can’t separate the law – that one can’t subsidize any part of the UN where the Palestine state is part of – from the more general stance in this blog that no money should go to any project that does promote (C)AGW. The first is purely based on politics, against their own believes in the case of AGW (an unintended consequence of the law in their view), the second is based on science. By promoting the political law to reach the real goal, you are using politics (and inherently taking the political side of that law), not science.
It was your choice to bring that extremely laden political point here, not mine…

1saveenergy
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 22, 2016 10:41 am

Willis,
In the past I & many others on here have admired your clear analytical thinking on climate related subjects.
Rightfully, you always include a variation of –
“My Usual Request: Confusion is a huge stumbling block, so if you disagree with me or anyone, please quote the exact words you disagree with so we can all understand your objections. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend someone else’s interpretation of some unidentified words of mine.”
Why are you stooping to name calling – “uncaring douche” “jerkwagon” just because people make comments you don’t like
You have disappointed me greatly.
As I said in another post –
‘remember YOU opened the Palestinian Pandora’s box here not us, so don’t complain that YOU are pissed off & don’t start calling people names (“makes you look like an uncaring douche.”), we get enough of that from warmisters.’

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 22, 2016 11:26 am

Willis,
To be clear, I abhor violence, no matter from which side it comes. In this case from both sides.
I don’t think it is a good idea to (ab)use a law from 1996 because it fits what you want to happen. That law is pure politics, as it clearly blames one side for the violence and has nothing to do with the science of (C)AGW. By approving to use that law you implicitly agree with its viewpoint, even when you ask not to discuss its underlying politics.
That is my point…

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 22, 2016 1:28 pm

Willis,
Depends of how far you want to go to stop the UNFCCC…
Take that some time in the (near) future a new president and congress of the US implements a law to put all pro-(C)AGW scientists in jail. Mission accomplished? Or should we fight that law because it is against everything which you and I believe would be open discussion as science should be?
I do fully agree to stop the UNFCCC, but not with the current law, as that is too political one-sided againts one population and in no way connected to the science of AGW…

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 23, 2016 1:19 am

Willis,
I know, it is difficult to see from the remote US view, but the law does discriminate between Israel and Palestine, putting all the blame of the violence on the Palestinians, even not using them by name. By using that law to get a completely unrelated goal, you implicitly endorse that law, even unintended. That makes that your call not to discuss the whole Israel-Palestine question is in fact broken by yourself, by using that argument…
BTW, on 29 November 2012, Palestine was declared a “non-member state” of the UN, factually making it a state and thus conflicting with the US law…

Gareth Phillips
April 21, 2016 8:36 am

I understand your frustrations Willis, but I don’t think it is possible to separate ancient feuds from your thread in this instance.

MRW
April 21, 2016 8:53 am

some people will indeed honor my request and leave the ancient Middle East hatreds out of the thread.

Why? The senators didn’t. They wrote,

We implore the administration to hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions in circumventing the peace process, and to abide by current law prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funds for the UNFCCC and its related entities and other UN affiliated organizations that recognize the ‘State of Palestine.”

The text of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act is here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr2333/text/enr
Nowhere in the Act does it mention the ‘State of Palestine.” Nowhere in the Act does it say it establishes a prohibition of “U.S. taxpayer funds” to any UN entity that recognizes the “State of Palestine.”
In fact, the Act says,

SEC. 410. LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS AND AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS.
The United States shall not make any voluntary or assessed contribution–
(1) to any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, or
(2) to the United Nations, if the United Nations grants full membership as a state in the United Nations to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood,
during any period in which such membership is effective.

What the Lobby behind this senatorial missive is fearful of is that by granting membership in this UN entity it might help establish an ’internationally recognized attribute[s] of statehood’. That fear underpins the conditional statement introducing their objection

We believe that your failure to do so will constitute a violation of current law

So it’s a stab in the dark they hope will stick. Only 27 out of the total 100 senators signed it, the majority of whom are up for reelection this year and need donor dollars and support.
These senators should, instead, be passing laws overnight for the American people, their constituents, who still need jobs and a recovered economy. Let the Israelis and Palestinians duke it out themselves.

April 21, 2016 11:10 am

Well, Willis, you are cheering a side fallout from US policy in the debate over Palestine, while avoiding discussion of the underlying law.
FTR, the problems is behavior of persons supposedly representing “Palestinians”, who the UN recommended be given a state in 1948. Several Arab states blocked that, making war on Israel. Many Palestinians bet with their feet that Israel would lose, and moved across the border – those are the origins of the refugee camps that profligate hypocrite Yasser Arafat did nothing to help. Those who lost the bet gave up jobs in the relatively free state of Israel.

Mike the Morlock
April 21, 2016 2:04 pm

Hello Willis.
No , Willis I am not going to violate your request. But I will point out the the issue is way beyond climate science and CAGW.
The move to allow the PLO a seat on UNFCCC was political coup against the United States. They know from past experience what our legal response would have to be. They have dumped a political hot potato on this country. What are President Obama’s choices? He can follow the Law, and in effect cancel out on his Paris climate change promises. While many here would cheer such a “Forcing” it would not sit well with me that a cabal of other nations can manipulate our national policy. Such a decision would/will cause accusations and recriminations from sections of the population that is still of the belief that AGW is real. (The way to win the climate war is to use truth and education to sway the public, not take advantage of an enemy’s mechanisms. But we’re stuck with it.)
Of course the President can simply use executive orders to give a waver in this case and cause a constitutional crisis.
He can come hat in hand to get congress to enact the waver, (Best choice) there by letting them fight all the battle you had hoped to avoid here.
Now remember the parties that enacted this most likely have stratagems in the event that we do withdraw from UNFCCC which would be towards isolating us and making us a pariah. Possibly sanctions.
The link below is about Mr Obama’s “trip” to Saudi Arabia. It did not go will.
So yes Willis I hope that the senate force the President to follow the law to the letter, but it is going to be messy. Oh and fun. Lets just go into it eyes wide open.
michael
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-officials-give-obama-chilly-reception-in-riyadh/

Martin Mayer
April 21, 2016 2:09 pm

Shouldn’t the letter have gone to the Secretary of the Treasury? It’s the Treasury that actually spends disburses throws away the money.

MRW
Reply to  Martin Mayer
April 21, 2016 5:17 pm

The US Treasury, and hence the Secretary of the Treasury, is only the accounts receivable/accounts payable department of the executive branch. It doesn’t set foreign policy.
Neither do US senators for that matter, no matter how much some of them view themselves as mini-presidents. They are members of the legislative branch (with the House), not the executive branch, and their constitutional duty is to domestic issues and the American people, including formal declarations of war that send American citizens into the abyss. (Yeah, yeah, I know about the recent sleights of hand that have allowed the President to act unilaterally in that regard.)
Foreign policy is the sole constitutional purview of the President as Head of State (Executive), not Head of Government (Legislative), with the exception of treaties that can possibly override domestic US law and require a majority % of the Senate to ratify.
This letter has (political) special interest group written all over it, and apart from the surface joy of getting the UNFCCC kicked in the keister, it represents no national security interest to the United States. In fact, it shows untoward meddling by a foreign nation in our national institutions.

MRW
Reply to  MRW
April 21, 2016 5:22 pm

. . . . in our national policies and institutions.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  MRW
April 21, 2016 6:03 pm

MRW April 21, 2016 at 5:17 pm
“Foreign policy is the sole constitutional purview of the President as Head of State (Executive), not Head of Government (Legislative), with the exception of treaties that can possibly override domestic US law and require a majority % of the Senate to ratify.”
Hi MRW, all treaties come under the advise and consent clause. And no, foreign policy is not the “sole purview of the President. shall I say lend lease FDR, and Boland Amendment R. Reagan? Did you sleep through constitutional Law 101?
michael

Gunga Din
April 21, 2016 3:09 pm

“United” Nations.
People like the idea of “united”. But what are they united for? To prevent war? After WW2 that’s what was desired and how it was sold to the people (American and the rest). Just like the League of Nations was marketed after WW1, but the US citizens didn’t buy it.
Neither group did or has stopped War, their “Prime Directive”.
What the UN has done that the League failed to do is gain the US’s membership and more cash and authority.
A “good cause” gone bad.

Khwarizmi
April 21, 2016 4:45 pm

Willis Eschenbach
April 20, 2016 at 9:46 pm
Sorry, not interested in your ancient feuds … give it a rest.
===========
It might help your diseased conscience to pretend that 2014 is “ancient.”
But thus shall ye deal with them:
ye shall destroy their altars
and break down their images,
and cut down their groves,
http://www.juragentium.org/pics/olives.jpg
and burn their graven images with fire.
http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/gaza-strike-29.jpg
For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God:
the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself,
above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.
Deuteronomy 7:5-6

u.k(us)
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 21, 2016 6:54 pm

Not sure what any of that meant, one thing I do know, is that the Israelis hit back 10 times as hard.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 21, 2016 7:14 pm

The UN set up present day Israel and Palestine. Then abdicated all responsibility for its actions.
Let us know when you torch the UN.
(If torching or the UN is too extreme, how about we just defund them? To prevent more damage.)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 21, 2016 7:23 pm

Small sort-of-typo.
“(If torching or the UN is too extreme, how about we just defund them? To prevent more damage.)”
I originally typed:
“(If torching or flying planes into the UN is too extreme, how about we just defund them? To prevent more damage.)”
By I changed my mind. I just missed backspacing the “or”.

Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 21, 2016 10:03 pm

the LORD thy God hath chosen thee
Receptionist; God will see you now Mr Goldstein.
God; YES MR GOLDSTEIN?
Mr. Goldstein; Uhm…. well, uhm, you see….well its just that…look, I’m the representative of the Jewish people downstairs….. and uhm, we have a question.
God; YES MR GOLDSTEIN, WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION?
Mr. Goldstein; Well, uhm, we just wanted to know. Is it, uhm, true that, well, that we’re the chosen people?
God; YES MR GOLDSTEIN. YOU ARE THE CHOSEN PEOPLE.
Mr. Goldstein; OK. Uhm. Right then. Can I ask one more question?
God; YES MR GOLSTEIN?
Mr Goldstein; Well then, if we’re the chosen people, would you mind choosing someone ELSE for a change?

Gunga Din
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 21, 2016 10:52 pm

God; Ah! But that was My secret!
I’ve chosen everybody. My son paid the “cover charge” for all.
Now, who will choose to accept they need him to get in? You’re all in “stage two” now. Everybody will have gotten their just desserts by “stage three”.
Oh! In case you’re wondering, his life also covered for all the OT dudes that believed Me. (Sort of like a credit card. When the bill comes due, his life made the life of a passover lamb “good”.)
All will receive what I’ve promised. Whether you life or death
(Sorry, Willis. I’m done now.)

1saveenergy
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 22, 2016 6:08 am

Willis,
I think you’ve just proved the law of unintended consequence; remember YOU opened the Palestinian Pandora’s box here not us, so don’t complain that YOU are pissed off & don’t start calling people names (“makes you look like an uncaring douche.”), we get enough of that from warmisters.
In science we should always follow the data/evidence where ever it leads without trying to influence the outcome (unlike John Cook, Mr. Mann & various government departments).
I think you were correct to bring the subject up because exactly like CAGW, the Middle East is now nothing to do with science or history & everything to do with politics.
The CAGW war will never be won by science (if that were the case this site would have been redundant years ago) & the Middle East will never be won by history or morals; both will be solved by politics, but there will be a lot of collateral damage to the poor (no change there) whilst we allow the existing corrupt politicians to hold power.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 22, 2016 11:00 am

Willis,
FFS, stop calling people names, you are acting like a petulant child that can’t get its own way, it does this brilliant site no favors & makes you look silly.
Have a beer/go for a sail & relax, then get back to your normal excellent writing on climate.

saveenergy
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 22, 2016 6:07 pm

Willis,
This is getting tedious, so lets recap…..
You said you were “overjoyed today to read the following media release regarding a formal letter from a group of Senators to US Secretary of State John Kerry:”
regarding the political use of a US law involving the Palestinians – that was a political move on your part.
You must have had a naive moment if you thought Middle East politics would not be discussed as you had introduced the subject.
You started SHOUTING AT PEOPLE
You started calling people names
When that was pointed out, You continued SHOUTING AT PEOPLE & calling them names –
“uncaring douche.”, “impotent fool”, “jerkwagons”….. that’s probably not the best way to persuade anyone to your point of view.
Regarding my 2 comments on the subject, I carefully took no side as I don’t have a dog in the fight & don’t have any “ancestral feuds”.
I’m intrigued to know what you consider my “past history” is.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 23, 2016 7:36 am

Willis,
You say “I did not bring the Israeli-Palestinian problem into this.”
Sorry, but you did; all be it unintentionally & you opened a Pandoras Box….
1 ) The title “Palestine Redux” means ‘Palestine revived or brought back’.
Maybe a bad choice, I can see how that could raise the hackles on both sides.
2 ) the law you want to use was born from the conflict – where one side has gained advantage by intense lobbying of US government, that law has a back story, another point of conflict.
See also Ferdinand’s comment April 23, 2016 at 1:19 am :
As I stated earlier (you’ve just proved the law of unintended consequence).
• Willis you say – “Some tried to support me in keeping the conversation on track.”
you may like to note I was one of those that said “So lets keep on topic.”
but you then attack me “… but uncaring douches like yourself “.
Do what you do best – comment on & simplify scientific & ecological subjects for us.
Diplomacy is obviously not for you.
I wish you well.

Slacko
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 23, 2016 10:30 am

Khwarizmi,
What makes you think that passage from Deuteronomy applies to any events in 2014. It was intended for a people who believed and served their God, which they have not done for at least 2400 years. Of those who call themselves Jews, the majority are non-religious, most of the remainder are Pharisaic (as were the priests who crucified Christ) and between 1% and 6% are Christian.
As a nation, they never seem to learn that when they disobey God they are persecuted, and when they turn back to Him they are restored. It is way too late for them to return to Old Testament practices. Their only path to peace is to accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah.

April 22, 2016 5:35 am

It is a good letter, well-written, and very specific. Unfortunately, I’m not sure it will matter, as far as money being sent to various entities. The reason it won’t matter, is because the last Continuing Resolution (used to bypass the unfortunate fact that the US government has not had a budget in nearly 9 years) was set to fund a whole bunch of stuff through most of 2017. I would question, then, whether this is simply grandstanding on the part of these senators. The US federal government keeps funding failing “green” technology. And they really like failing UN “green” technology, as that passes out money throughout the world. I would like to believe that we have some good and competent people in our US government, who have their feet firmly planted on the ground. But whenever I get my hopes up, it turns out to be smoke-and-mirrors. Let’s hope this is actually real, and can make a difference.

Terry
April 22, 2016 7:05 am

I’ve been trying for years to get people focused on the UN. It is the head of the serpent. We need to cut its head off.
Defund the UN asap.

Reply to  Terry
April 22, 2016 7:29 am

I agree, Terry. The Root-Cause-Analysis of this problem, is that the UN can do whatever it bloody well wants to do, and uses mostly US dollars to do it. Perhaps our next president will reconsider a lot of treaties that we have been tied to, including our membership in the UN. Defunding green projects, whether in the UN, or in the US proper, would also be a proper concern of a new administration.

April 23, 2016 10:38 am

Willis ~ When the PA joined UNESCO in 2011, the US and Israel walked out together in a show of solidarity.
At the signing ceremony yesterday, the PA complained (predictably) that Israeli settlements were destroying the environment. Israel complained (predictably) that the PA was more interested in advancing their agenda than in solving the climate problem. No where was a single word spoken about the illegality under US law of the PA being there. Not even the most rabid right wing over the top pundits in Israel are whispering a peep about this, though it is their obvious advantage to do so. There is a clear tacit agreement (sadly) in this case, to quietly not enforce the US law. A mere 28 senators signing a letter will change nothing.
As for your complaint about ancient hatreds, I have no particular interest in them. But at the age of 6, I was beaten by school mates for (apparently) my hand in killing Jesus. It matters not that I have no interest in the ancient hatreds. The ancient hatreds have an interest in me. It was my first lesson in the matter, but by no means the last.
May I respectfully suggest that in the future you close comments entirely at the outset. The purveyors of misinformation and hate will not respect your request under any circumstance. The only people likely to respect your request at all are those that the the ancient hatreds take a current interest in victimizing.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 23, 2016 1:04 pm

Probably that is because it is NOT illegal under US law for the PA to be there …
I meant as a member of the UNFCCC, which they were.
I’d say it has been mostly successful.
True. But a lot of misinformation and outright lies were not discredited. Leaving the thousands of people who read the thread and have no other background on the matter with distorted information.
Getting back to the main issue you raised, there was little political cost to anyone to withdraw from UNESCO. I think protecting world heritage sites is a wonderful thing. But it doesn’t change much in terms of geopolitics. Unfortunately, UNFCCC has a potentially heavy influence on geopolitics, to the detriment of the billions who will suffer and starve under its lash. Excuses for keeping a hand in the mix will be found.
And again, I would be delighted to be completely wrong.

%d bloggers like this: